New Year Resolutions

Time to start blogging again :)

Reflections on the 2011 Presidential Elections

The last two weeks have been pretty hectic for me. With both of my parents out of town and my sis settling in into her new life in Vancouver, I’ve been occupying my time with school, training and the household chores. The Presidential elections are just around the corner and truth be told there hasn’t been as much coverage online about it in comparison with the General Elections a couple of months back. What is even more intriguing perhaps is the lack of knowledge a significant number of Singaporeans have on the presidential candidates and more importantly the duties of what the elected presidency encompasses, despite the 2001 Presidential elections being an unprecedented event with 4 contenders vying for the top job.

I started this note with the intention of (re)introducing the 4 presidential hopefuls and listing out the pros and cons of each individual candidate and what I feel about them and who I believe should occupy the hot seat. However, as I learned about the candidates, and more importantly what the people thought about the presidential elections, the more I realized how severe the ramifications of having an apathetic and “uneducated” electorate were. As I browsed through the couple of popular online forums, I realized that a significant number online didn’t really know just exactly what the duties of the president were and what were his limitations.

Before I go any further, I just like to add in a short disclaimer. This note is not an academic essay. I have cut and paste huge large parts of it (2 big parts to be specific). What I hope to achieve at the end of this entry is to leave you with enough information to understand what you’re voting for come polling day (roles and duties of the president) and have a better understanding on the dynamics of this upcoming PE (I am linking Catherine Lim’s blog post here). We live in a very busy society and it is perfectly understandable how a ridiculous number of people will be going to the polls with no idea just who they’re voting for. Perfectly understandable indeed. Let us begin with the roles and duties of the elected Presidency.

From Annex D: Statement by the Minister of Law on the Elected President, 10th June 2011

Singapore has a Parliamentary system of government, not a Presidential one. The President is the Head of State, not the Head of Government. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government and has the authority and responsibility to govern Singapore. The Constitution clearly defines the role and scope of the President. He has custodial powers, not executive powers. In other words, he can veto or block Government actions in specified areas, but he has no role to advance his own policy agenda. National policies and running the Government are the responsibility of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is so for all policies, whether they concern security and defence, immigration and population, or housing and social safety nets. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are accountable to Parliament, where policies are debated and endorsed, and ultimately to voters, who decide every five years who to elect to Parliament and to govern Singapore.

The President’s veto powers over the Government are limited to specific areas:

1. Protection of past reserves, i.e. reserves accumulated during previous terms of office of Government;
2. Appointment of key personnel; and
3. ISA detentions, CPIB investigations and any restraining order in connection with the maintenance of religious harmony.

On all other matters, under the Constitution the President must act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. In addition, the President is required to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) when exercising his veto powers in connection with reserves and appointments.

The President’s veto powers are an important check against a profligate government squandering the nation’s reserves, or undermining the integrity of the public service. That is why the people directly elect the President: to have the mandate to carry out his custodial role, and the moral authority to say no if necessary to the elected government.

Protection of Past Reserves

The Constitution protects the past reserves of the Government and key statutory boards and government companies (‘5th Schedule’ entities) like the CPF Board, MAS, HDB, GIC and Temasek. The reserves include physical assets like land and buildings as well as financial assets like cash, securities and bonds. The Government of the day can only spend past reserves with the approval of the President.

However, the President does not direct the operations of these statutory boards and government companies. In particular, he is not empowered to direct the investment strategies of GIC and Temasek. The investment strategies of GIC and Temasek are the responsibility of their respective Boards and managements. The Government’s role is to appoint suitable and qualified individuals to the two Boards. The President’s role is to approve Board appointments proposed by the Government. The President also receives the audited annual accounts of GIC and Temasek, and has access to any of the information that is available to their boards. This system of governance has allowed the GIC and Temasek to operate professionally and to achieve good returns over time, comparable to other reputable global investors.

Appointment of key personnel

To safeguard the integrity of the Public Service, the President has the discretion to refuse the appointment of a person to certain key positions in the public service. He can also refuse to concur with the removal of persons from these key positions. These include the Attorney General, Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission, the Auditor-General, and the chiefs of the Armed Forces and Police. The President has similar veto powers over the appointment of the Chief Justice and Judges, and board members and CEOs of the 5th Schedule entities.

ISA detentions, CPIB investigations and restraining orders in connection with the maintenance of religious harmony

The President’s concurrence is required for further detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) if Cabinet disagrees with the ISA advisory board’s advice that the detainee should be released. His concurrence also allows the Director of the Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau to continue with investigations even if the Prime Minister has refused permission to conduct the investigations. The President can cancel, vary or confirm any restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, if the decision of Cabinet is against the recommendations of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.

In summary, the President is all but perhaps a signatory authorizing the usage of Singapore savings and can only veto it upon consultation with the presidential council. Though Presidential approval is needed when appointing the top people of the public service, he can only consider and approve names handed to him and not pick his own people. Invoking the ICA, pardoning criminals etc, all that can only be done upon consultation with the Presidential council. Though the 1991 amendment has given the President additional powers, he is still largely expected to dance to the tune of the ruling government. Having settled question of what the roles and duties of the president are, the next question some might ask is… why an elected presidency?

When the PAP government failed to make a clear sweep of all the seats in parliament for the first time in the 1984 elections and the subsequent 1988 elections, the general consensus amongst the ruling party was that these seats were lost as a result of the people “experimenting” with their votes and wanting to have their voices heard in parliament. It was then decided that there was a need for another, to hold a second key to the cabinet, that other being the elected president of Singapore. Prior to the amendments in the 1991 constitution, the role of the president was largely ceremonial. After the amendments, the role of the president was largely custodial. It is important to realize that the president’s main duties are to safeguard our financial reserves and of the integrity of our public service. The president was and is not a counter-balance to the government and that role remains exclusively the duty of the opposition.

Perhaps it’s best if I leave you with the following blog entry that so elegantly pens down the very essence of what I intended to write about the dynamics and ground sentiment of this upcoming PE if I weren’t so busy sweeping the garden and catching up with my ever growing pile of readings. ☺

The Elected Presidency: More Of The Same Or A Whole New Game?

When in 1991, the People’s Action Party (PAP) leaders decided to change the system of a government-appointed President of Singapore to that of a popularly elected one, they could never have foreseen the electoral chaos their decision would cause twenty years later.

For at that time, the amendments in the constitution, by all accounts, fitted in well with the government’s purpose. Firstly, the setting up of a president with a popular mandate to check the excesses of an administration grown incompetent or corrupt, had all the laudable marks of a healthily functioning democracy, that would surely go down well with the people.

Secondly, the veto powers of the president would by no means make him a source of annoyance to a PAP government used to having its own way, because of two cautionary provisions built into the constitution. The first was his prior clearance, before he could stand for election, by a government-appointed body that would see to it that he was acceptable, in the first place, to the government itself, in terms of his experience, intellectual acumen, moral character, personality, etc. The second and more important provision in the constitution, was his being subjected, after his election as president, to precisely stipulated limits of his custodial role as to its scope and demeanour, to ensure that the government would always have the final say.

Thirdly, the newly invested presidential power which would not likely be used on a PAP leadership that had always prided itself on its competence and incorruptibility, would nevertheless be a strong safeguard against any future government inclined towards excess, and especially against any rogue opposition party coming into power and ready to squander the nation’s vast reserves in populist schemes to curry favour with the people.

In short, the amendments in the constitution for an Elected President (EP) would greatly enhance the traditional role of the president, and increase its usefulness. Thus, in addition to being the ceremonial head of a nation, a symbol of democratic processes at work, a focus for national pride and emotional outpouring, and the nation’s proud representative abroad in the illustrious company of royalty and dignitaries, he would also be the moral conscience of the government, albeit a discreetly quiet one. The EP would thus be a luminous star in a continuing tripartite, president-government-people relationship of unity and harmony.

But the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011) has burst asunder all the smooth lines of this pattern and reduced it to a chaos of disunities and disjunctions that, in the present run-up to the Presidential Election on 27 August, continue to confuse and vex voters. These fall broadly into the pro-PAP group, the 60% who voted for the party in GE 2011, and the anti-PAP group, the 40% who gave their vote to the opposition, both groups being now expected to give their support, accordingly, to the presidential candidate who is either associated with the PAP, or distanced from and independent of it.

The four contenders, as they go about canvassing for votes, are clearly lined along an ideological spectrum, with the strongest PAP associate at one end, and the strongest PAP critic at the other. All the highly-charged, hotly debated issues of the campaign seem to devolve into one common, fundamental question: Exactly what is the role of the EP?

It is a reflection of the latent contradictions of the constitution, only now emerging, that the very same sacrosanct document is quoted by both opposing sides to support their standpoints. Thus, the pro-PAP voters, backing the presidential hopeful who has been publicly endorsed by the government and the various pro-establishment unions and organizations, are saying: ‘The constitution stipulates the president’s custodial role very clearly, which means that he must work closely and harmoniously with the government for the common good.’ The anti-PAP voters, supporting those presidential hopefuls who they perceive will act independently, even adversarially, are saying with equal confidence, ‘The popular mandate of the president, for which the constitution was changed in the first place, would make no sense if he did not represent the people who had voted directly for him. Therefore, he must be the voice of the people and stand up against the government, if necessary, to protect their interests.’

The dilemma for voters boils down to a choice between two situations that could not be more contrasted: to keep the status quo and thus ensure continuity and stability, or to opt for change without which there can be no progress. So: stay on the terra firma of the known, or venture into the terra incognita of the unknown? Have more of the same, or go for a whole new game?

Ironically, the same constitution is perceived as providing equal logical, legal and moral backing for either of these two diametrically opposed stances. Even more ironically, the constitution which places the EP above politics, has caused him to be the centre of the most divisive political contest seen in Singapore. It would be difficult, after such an election, to see the new President of Singapore in an aura of magisterial bearing, dignified detachment and inspirational benevolence. For he would have been permanently tainted by the mean-spiritedness and low-mindedness that are an inevitable part of the hype and hoopla of a political campaign.

Among the anti-PAP group, there is a specially vocal, bold, single-minded band which, though in the minority, warrants special attention, because they have, through their persistent, assiduous and skilful exploitation of the power of the social media, successfully channeled the discontent and anger of GE 2011 into the Presidential election. Their rallying cry which must have great resonance for large numbers of disaffected Singaporeans is: No more of the same PAP dominance, no more of the same PAP arrogance and insensitivity to the needs of the people! We need a whole new game, with the rules re-written by ourselves, to serve the people’s interests, not theirs! We can do this through the EP because we gave him our vote!

There are three special kinds of emotional appeal that this anti-PAP group has adroitly crafted out of the outcomes of GE 2011:

• urging the people to replicate their astonishing triumph and spectacular gains in GE 2011, by reminding them that, for the first time in electoral history, they were able to make the powerful PAP government buckle to their demands for changes in unpopular policies, including the hated ministerial salaries; convincing them that the coming Presidential Election represents their best possible chance to reinforce and extend these gains, a chance that moreover, may never come again, at least not for another five years.
• emphasizing to the people the sheer unfairness of a system by which the unprecedented 40% vote which they had given the opposition had converted into a paltry six seats in Parliament; assuring them that this gross disproportion could be redressed by an actively independent EP.
• pointing out to the people that despite the avowals for change, the PAP administration is still very much mired in its old mindset, and so far seems to be more interested in making personnel rather than policy changes; that despite his resignation from the cabinet, the former, long-feared Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew is still very much around, judging by the public comments and pronouncements he is still making, including his recent one reiterating the necessity of bringing in foreign talent, which had been a contentious GE 2011 issue.

The increasingly bolder anti-PAP camp, whose vociferousness and hence very palpable presence makes them a more effective force for change than the silent majority, is a new species of political animal that was created by the shock events of GE 2011. It has tasted freedom and smelt blood. It can no longer be muzzled. Indeed, it seems by now to be unstoppable and may well prove to be the most intractable force for the PAP government to deal with in the future. The EP who might have been savaged by this feral creature during the hustings, will have no choice but to placate and make peace with it.

The coming Presidential Election on 27 August will be watched like no other, because the political landscape that has changed so amazingly after GE 2011, may well see a second transformation.

- Catherine Lim

That marks the end of this what I hope has been a rather meaningful read. Happy voting!!

PS: Before I truly conclude however, I would just like to draw your attention to just one of the many contentious issues brought up over the past week.

In the Presidential Elections Act, it is stated that a candidate must have for a period of not less than three years held office as a as chairman of the board of directors or CEO of a company incorporated or registered under the Companies Act with a paid-up capital of at least $100 million or its equivalent in foreign currency or in any other similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organization or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector which has given him such experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to enable him to carry out effectively the functions and duties of the office of President. Mr Tony Tan retired as the Executive Director of GIC only on the 23rd of June 2011… Either GIC doesn’t cut it as a department of “equivalent size or complexity” Food for thought eh...

Courtesy.

Bringing a baby no more than 4 years old out for a 9.45 pm movie doesn't say much about your parenting skills. Letting the baby scream his head off in the cinema for a good 5 minutes doesn't say much about your civic mindedness. Screaming back at the many voices hollering for you to take the baby out of the cinema simply shows how stubborn you are. At least you lot have the brains to leave the cinema as soon as the credits started rolling...

Heartache

I kinda broke down thinking of you today. Sigh... the heartache doesn't seem to go away.

Catching up

And all it took was a BBQ :) It was really great catching up with all of you. Till the next meet up...

Goodbye and Hello

Trip's ending in a couple of days time... :( But its been a good though undeserving rest for me... Will be looking forward to shaking things up when I get back :)

Silence

Doubts and uncertainty. Walking in circles in the middle of a crossroad. Regrets... tons of it. Embarrassment. Feeling like a bum.

Too much of a good thing can be depressing at times.

Goodbye Old Friend

When Sumo was diagnosed with Brain Tumors about 2 weeks ago, I started a blog with the intention of chronicling his last days with us. Unfortunately, the site which hosts the blog crashed and the blog kinda got wiped out. Sadly, Sumo didn't last past the 9th day and left us on the 17th of May 2009. It’s been 6 days since Sumo passed on. The last couple of days have been quite the emotional roller coaster ride for my family and I. In just nine short days, we saw what was, on the surface anyway, a loved one succumb to a crippling disease and pass on. This wasn’t my first encounter with brain tumors and cancer. My tuition teacher, who tutored me from K1 to Secondary 3, suffered from brain cancer too and passed on shortly after being diagnosed with cancer. It seemed Sumo had, by some cruel twist of fate suffered a similar end. I’ve been meaning to write a short entry about his passing but the last 2 days was packed and I didn’t really have much time to write much about it.

Sumo resting 4 days before his passing

Following his seizures on the 13^th of May, we were told by the veterinary surgeon that the following 48 hours would be a good indicator if he would pull through. If he pulled through the next 48 hours without any medical emergencies or seizures, there would be a high chance that he might be able to get through a couple more weeks or even months. My family, my dad especially, watched him like a hawk over the next 48 hours which passed, thankfully, without any incident.

Mum and Dad attending to Sumo

On the 16^th of May, we brought Sumo in for what we hope would be the first of his many routine check ups. Nothing seemed amiss and the vet was very happy with the physical condition he was in. The analysis of his MRI from the Veterinary Clinic in Australia seemed rather vague about what he was suffering from and in short, was inconclusive as to the cause of his cancer. However, there was no doubt that he was suffering from multiple tumors in the head which affected his neurological functions. How those tumors came about… I guess we'll never know. We had Sumo's IV needle removed and left soon after paying the bills. We brought Sumo to the small patch of grass outside the carpark and watched happily on as he walked and sniffed around almost as if nothing was wrong. After returning home, my dad went to sleep and I was left to watch him for a short while. During my watch, Sumo got up twice and I carried him out to the little grass patch across the road for him to relieve himself. Even in such sickeness, Sumo made a conscious effort to alert us as to when he needed to relieve himself so that we could take him out. Once outside however, Sumo would walk and look up frequently at me in a daze as if he couldn’t remember what to do next.

During the night, I checked on Sumo twice and both times I found him fast asleep in the corner of his cage. However, at about 6 am in the morning, it became apparent that his condition was worsening significantly and as he started to loosing control of his bowel movements. Maria and my dad cleaned him up and then my dad took him out for what would be his last walk, cradling him in his arms. It became apparent that his condition was continuing to worsen. My dad rushed back into the house and brought him up to the second floor. He woke my mum up, who in turn rushed to wake us up. We rushed out and gathered around him. It was very evident then that the time to say goodbye had finally arrived. We whispered our final goodbyes and as my mum, the last amongst the 4 of us to do so, bent down to kiss him goodbye on his head, he let out a loud sigh and took his last breath.

Sumo lying down after dinner

Regardless of what anyone says about saying goodbye, and how time will heal all wounds, it simply isn’t as easy as it looks. After hearing about the tumors and all on Mother's day, not to mention those seizures and near misses throughout the nine days that followed, I made an effort to prepare myself mentally for that fateful day. However, when it finally came, regardless of how ready I thought I was, I couldn’t bring myself to actually say goodbye. Though I managed to compose myself and all, I broke down pretty badly when the time came to finally let him go. The only consolation I had then was that he wasn't in pain anymore. He was in quite a bit of discomfort and in death he seemed to be at peace. It seemed almost as if he had drifted into a deep slumber, just like he used to do in my bedroom and appeared as if he would awake any time.

Sumo, my Sis and I on my 23rd Birthday

Sumo's time with us wasn't very long, but in those 10 years... My family and I have learnt so much more about ourselves and about life in general from him. Its amazing how Sumo, a mere mutt, thought us so much about responsibility, unconditional love, loyalty and eventually death. Truth be told, words don't do justice to how I felt and am feeling for Sumo. Every time I see a pooch trotting down the street here in Berlin, memories of the good times Sumo and I had together come flooding back in. I am going to miss him so very much :)

Sumo in bed with me... everyday for the last 10 years.

Love ya always :)

Heart Break

"Ever has it been that love know not its own depth until the hour of separation."

- Kahil Gibran

Final Note before polling day!

With polling day less than 24 hours away, I am sure that many Singaporeans, like me, have made the effort to see, hear and gather as much information as they can for themselves so that they can make the best possible decision come D-Day tomorrow. I would have loved to attend more rallies but alas, I was only able to make it down to 2 days of rallies as my papers ended on the 4th of May. Thankfully, Todaydigital provided a rather comprehensive collection of most of the election rallies on their YouTube channel. Granted that the PAP has been leading this country for the last couple of decades and have shown their worth through their tenure, I decided to head down to the opposition rallies instead to see what the folks on the other side of the fence had to say and offer.

I managed to catch the WP’s rally at Ubi on the 4th of May and the SDP’s final rally at Woodlands on the 5th of May. Having watched most of the rallies online and actually listening to the above two in person, I thought that I’d share my thoughts on the elections and how it would actually affect Singaporeans.

At the rallies, it was humbling and heartening to see the large number of people who turned up despite the less than stellar conditions. Though the field that the WP organized their election rally in on the 4th of May was waterlogged and muddy, the immense crowd, which showed up, reflected a cross section of Singaporean society. The old, the young (dragged around in prams) and individuals from every racial and strata of society stood ankle deep in the mud cheering and listening to what the opposition members had to say. The stunning turnout at the rallies and the huge buzz in online forums and various networking sites proved to many that Singaporeans were genuinely interested in the political future of our country and not the politically apathetic fools as many claim.

The intention of my note today is to hopefully highlight the importance of voting for the right team tomorrow. From what I gathered from the speeches and articles on the mainstream media, I believe that the PAP has been encouraging the people to vote for the party with an established track record. The incumbents have repeatedly criticized the opposition on its plans for Singapore should it get elected into power and repeatedly appeals to the rationality of an enlightened people not to “ruin a good thing” by “rocking the boat.”

First and foremost, I believe a political party’s performance in rallies during its electoral campaign is an excellent indicator of just how seriously the party is taking this election. This is especially true in Singapore’s context given that the oppositions have only this period to communicate their plans and vision to Singaporeans. I was an ardent supporter of the PAP, having myself served with the YPAP in Kaki Bukit before, but I feel that the party has lost focus on what it means to be members of parliaments and representatives of the people. I also believe that for the Opposition to be effective there needed to be an acceptance on the part of both the Government and the wider society of the essentials of parliamentary democracy and an agreement reached on the ‘rules of the game’. Essentially, all-round acceptance that the Opposition has an important role to play must be present before an Opposition can take charge here.

As a result of the GRC system, the people of Singapore have only two important considerations to make before heading to the polls. We as voters, do not only have to consider what is best for the country as a whole but we also need to decide what is best for the constituency which we reside in. I, like many others, take issue with this system but debating about it at this juncture in time isn’t very different from the incumbents apologizing for their high handedness 48 hours before polling day. So that brings us to the million-dollar question at hand how should we vote this coming Saturday?

In the world we live in today, opinion and feedback polls are crucial sources of information that gets analyzed and listened too by politicians. In Singapore, the politicians obtain their feedback through REACH and MPS but also through informal GRC gatherings and the ever popular block visits, neighborhood walks. The political leadership in Singapore today cannot live in a vacuum between elections but must engage in constant dialogue with the electorate. Many fervent PAP supporters out there believe that the stability and security that a dominant party system offers is far more beneficial to the vibrancy of a multi-party system. In fact, a significant number of MPs have raised this issue up during their rally speeches and many talked about how the party will listen more and better represent the diversity of Singaporean society should they be elected into power. I however would beg to differ.

As I have written previously in my earlier notes, there remains a strong distinction between the party, the parliament and the bureaucracy. The PAP is a political party and it is important that despite its size and experience it still has its own agenda and policies that might not include all the voices in Singapore. I believe that a single party cannot fully represent the voices of all Singaporeans and that the PAP has too, not proven itself the exception. PAP MP Tan Soo Khoon was rebuffed by the then-PM Goh when he called for fellow ‘backbenchers’ in parliament to be given more freedom to vote. PM Goh was quoted as saying, “If you sing Jailhouse Rock with your electric guitar when others are playing Beethoven, you are out of order. The whip must be used on you (Straits Times, April 6, 2002).” Party whips are party 'enforcers', who typically offer inducements and threaten punishments for party members to ensure that they vote according to the official party policy. How then can we expect the PAP MPs to voice the concerns of the general population especially those pertaining to unfavorable government policies if they’re expected to be subordinate to party lines?

Without an effective opposition, good decisions and resolutions on difficult or controversial matters are almost impossible. (Just like the IRs, you’ll get an efficient means of reaching a consensus but I’ve always felt that the ends do not justify the means and more rigorous debate on national policy should always be welcome.) In the end arrogance and ignorance will dominate if the only voices heard are those of Yes-men. Singapore has in place a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. FPTP often favors larger parties where the distance between members on the parties' right and left wings may be significant, which in turn can easily lead to internal conflict against the official party view when certain issues are voted on. The cracks within the PAP have started to show, and it became evident during the rallies that there was a lack of coherence and unity within the party. Can the PAP be entrusted with the full responsibility of leading the country? What then can the opposition provide which is so vital and lacking in a PAP dominated parliament?

It is highly unlikely (again a personal opinion), that the opposition occupies the necessary numbers to collectively amend or block a PAP bill in parliament but it can still suggest changes. Indeed the majority often sounds out the opposition whilst preparing a bill to minimize resistance on presentation to the house. (Obviously I am not sure how much effect 2 opposition members would have on the rest of the men/women in white over the past 5 years…) The role of the opposition is hence crucial in the legislation process as an opposition, in contrast to checks within the party, is better able to provide for more detailed and rigorous discussions when planning/debating the proposed bill. Again, I must reiterate the point which was made that mechanisms to promote accountability and exposure will only be effective if the general ‘culture of accountability’ and commitment that the opposition is campaigning for is also embraced by the incumbents. There is a consensus amongst the people that all aspects of administration must be subject to scrutiny and it is only through acceptance of such a “culture of accountability” will the overall effectiveness of the parliamentary system be realized. My case for more opposition members within the parliament is further strengthen by the somewhat diminishing effect of the mechanisms available to the Opposition to hold the Executive to account. A notable example as such is the reduction of time allocated to the MPs to make their speeches or to ask questions. Assuming everyone in the parliament is given a chance to talk, the time for the oppositions to actually present cases or to debate in parliament is merely a fraction of the time allocated to the PAP representatives in parliament. Assuming the opposition takes only 2 seats in parliament, that’s 40 minutes in total of speaking time, down from an already miserable one hour…

I must also point out here that the choice isn’t always simply between national and party interest. From the electoral campaign, it seems that the Opposition parties intend on representing important minority interests too. By having more opposition members in the parliament, the people will be able to ensure that governing parties, specifically those making up the majority party in parliament, do not exploit their majority force-reach agreements made in the interests of consensus and ‘the national interest’.

Former US ambassador to Singapore, Franklin Lavin was quoted to have described “Singapore’s 20th-century political model” as being inadequate for the 21st century, warning that the government “will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of its citizens.” I have heard the opposition speakers and I have heard the PAP members make their case. Whilst the PAP rhetoric reeks of arrogance and a strong sense of entitlement, I believe that the Opposition members we have running for a seat in the parliament are equally deserving of that seat. Whilst the PAP has been doing a decent job thus far in running the country, I believe that the PAP has had the chance to prove themselves over the past 10 years. They have done a good job, but it is clear that an additional perspective is necessary if we’re going to get it. I believe that having an having a sizable opposition in the parliament will not only rejuvenate Singaporean’s interest in political matters, as observed during the electoral campaigning period, but it will also help whip the PAP which has gotten complacent and disengaged from the population back into shape.

Paul Wellstone once said, “Politics isn’t about big money or power games; it’s about the improvement of people’s lives.” I believe in change and I believe that it is possible to realize a better Singapore than what we have right now. Make your vote count.

Note to you

Contrary to what you think Fudgy, no one's putting your miserable existence under any form of surveillance. It's good to see that you're actually using spellcheck for once... a pity you haven't tried the grammar-check function yet. I am glad that you're happy how your life's turning out too cause in all honesty that was something I didn't expect, given the rather "physical relationship" you seem to sustain with your "loved ones" :)

About that confrontation you so seek, I doubt its ever going to happen dear. Unlike you, I have much better things to do in life than to reenact your Korean Soap Opera fantasies with you, and trust me I know for certain too there's nothing you seem to hold sacred. I mean... if you can slam your own mother and sister online with such expletives I believe anything else is possible. It seems you have to right to er... do a lot of things in your life... things it seems any other decent girl I know wouldn't do like get drunk at a void deck...

Let's just set the record straight here, you corpulent sow (No hard feelings here, I ran your face through this Google App face recognition software and that's what came up...). You could be lying piss drunk in your own vomit and piss outside some random lup-sup bar (which you so like to frequent) and I would just walk over you without doubling back... That's how much I actually give a damn about you.

So whilst you express your right to... how should I put it... do whatever you want to do on the internet, recognize too that anyone can do the same. Just because we haven't chosen to engage doesn't mean we won't. Go back to tweeting and blogging about your rather overrated existence and keep to that or take a leaf out of your sibling's book and block off all external contact to your entries if you can't keep your stupid opinions about others to yourself. And when we do bite back Ms. Coccydynia, don't go whining about it to... your.. "loved ones". :)

Peace out.

Family Round 2

I hope this message reaches you. The invitation was a courtesy call. Its for us to invite and for you to decline. There's no need to get all bitchy and sensitive over the invite. Besides the invite was between my mother and her sibling. It most definitely wasn't extended to you two sad retards exclusively.

I've always practice restraint in dealing with sensitive issues as such but this time round I am going to make an exception. The invitation was from my parents to your parents. If we had a say about it, I wouldn't even let you near the spot where my dog defecates and pisses. Being associated with you (and your siblings) disgusts me. Your crassness and lack of humility is absolutely disgusting. I have always believed in some form in civility when dealing when family issues, since the lot of you can't seem to control your mouths and actions. The internet is a free place. That doesn't mean you don't practice any self restraint.

So watch what you write on the internet my little potty mouth relative. The walls have ears and the hedges have eyes, don't say you haven't been warned.

PS: If you're going to comment, do it in Chinese you uneducated prick since I can barely decipher whatever it is you type in English.

Happily Ever After...

Fairytales ending do come true...

Election Fever

With polling day just round the corner, one cannot help but notice the surge in activity online. This increase in “elections-related” activity online, especially over Facebook (which is the only social networking site I am on aside from the dying twitter account which I hardly pay attention too…) has been rather interesting and has been a welcome relief to many, including me, during the exam period. I have left a comment or two on friends’ walls about how I thoughts on certain individuals and policies. Amongst the many videos and commentaries that have been posted online, there are a few notable pictures, articles and interviews that have stood out from the others. TPL’s reflections on Razor TV, MG Chan’s 5 or 100 year speech and Nicole’s Introductory address, just to name a few. Despite the heavy coverage by the mainstream medias, it seems that the bulk of the discussion and “exchange of information” is taking place over the Internet. It also seems that the PAP (its candidates and policies) are drawing the heaviest fire online. Despite a number of notable and constructive criticisms made, it seems to be that a great many of the arguments for and against the incumbents seems to be rather superficial.

Like many out there, I feel strongly about a whole slew of issues which have been raised this elections. The rising cost of living in Singapore, the latest property cooling measures that were in put in place last year, immigration issues, the potential rise in GST, ministerial pay… the list is long and non-exhaustive. I believe that there has been a lot of debate online and amongst the candidates themselves and I believe that that hails as a promising start to this upcoming elections.

This week marks the start of my examinations and as much I’d love to go on about how I feel about the candidates and all, I must keep this entry short and get back to my books.

The emergence of social media has altered the way the elections will play out tremendously. Inexpensive, easily accessible, fast and most importantly anonymous, new media has replaced traditional media as mainstream this elections. The PAP has been serving as the ruling party for the past few decades and has been credited with having great foresight when dealing with issues related to Singapore. However, it seems that the incumbents might have underestimated the utility of social media in their election campaign.

When the campaigning first started, I won’t deny that I was only too happy to start throwing comment after comment, shooting off criticism after criticism on the YouTube videos and articles on the PAP. There is no doubt that they were crass, arrogant and utterly tactless in dealing with the questions that were posed to them and the issues that were raised. The way Mr. Lui handled a meet & greet session with a resident, TPL’s frivolous replies to questions posed to her on that infamous video and Mr. Chan’s brutish ways when speaking on stage… honestly what’s there to love? Conversely, the opposition parties were eloquent and extremely responsive in dealing with the general public both during public forums and online, across the various social networking tools, which they have fully exploited to their benefit. I was immensely irritated by the incumbents’ arrogance and was adamant about voting for the opposition come May 7th. This changed however when my good friend, G, wrote in a reply to one of my comments that “he didn’t care about well a politician speaks but how well they governed.” It was only then did I realize that I might have been assessing the candidates rather superficially too.

In this upcoming election, especially in Singapore granted that we’re operating under the parliamentary system, it's the party's policies and goals that matter more than the individual’s promises. As G mentioned, MPs have very little room to demonstrate or voice their own views until they become more established (And by established one means becoming a minister in the cabinet). Unlike in the US, where a politician is given much more leeway in pushing his beliefs and stands, the MPs in Singapore (from one party that is) will tend to “blend in together like sheep”. At this point in time, TPL, Mr Chan, Nicole and all the other new faces are simply starting out on their political journey and it really is too early to tell how far they’ll go in their political careers (or maybe not…lol…).

Having said all that, the only sure thing is that there are many new faces this coming election, a significant portion of whom have had no or little previous experience in politics. All we have to go on is the manner in which they conduct themselves during rallies and walkabouts, their credentials and their electoral promises. As a result of the elections rules, the rallies and pre-elections speeches will be the only avenues for these candidates to discuss issues that they intend on tackling if they get voted in. The only ones with any experience in governing a country are the incumbents. The PAP has been the government since independence and in all honesty truth we don't exactly have a benchmark/gauge to measure them up against. (Unless we count the Japanese Occupation and the British Colonial Rule) I believe that the PAP has done a decent job thus far. There is definitely room for improvement and I do believe that they are capable of bringing about positive change in time to come. However, the new faces dressed in white on white, who like most members of the opposition team, are greenhorns seem entirely indifferent to the changing political climate of this country. I believe it is this ignorance, arrogance and this aura of entitlement, which these fresh PAP candidates have, which is irksome. This election will be a watershed for all Singaporeans in so many ways and it is imperative that we all sit up and make the right choice when polling day comes.

Photo by Suhaimi Abdullah/Getty Images AsiaPac

Photo by David Ng

Nuisance

You know the feeling one gets when one sits idly at the computer and surfs randomly for hours... browsing through random Facebook profile pages, reading through blogposts belonging to total strangers and deciphering 140 character coded messages on Twitter... yeah that feeling... I tend to get that quite a bit these days. On hindsight, the "hangover" from that mindless surfing leaves one reeling from extreme lethargy and a strange numbness in the brain. However, every dark cloud has its silver lining, and this mindless surfing on the net is no exception too. What one looses in terms of academic productivity, one reaps, multifold I must add, in what I would describe as "social knowledge". The latest gossip on who's dating who, who's got laid, who's popped out of the closet... my my... :) Its also fascinating to watch how individuals try so be someone else on the internet. The socially awkward becomes Mr Popular, the retards who can't converse in simple English (OR Mandarin for that matter...) start blogging in French and the silent start becoming opinionated anonymously... There's no crime in doing all that I guess but just so YOU know... I think its sad... :)

Happy Family

I have thought long and hard about the recent developments observed within my extended family (despite the growing mountain of work that's piling up on my desk) and I have come to realize that the best thing to do is to write about it. It is most unfortunate that the people that this article is directed at will most probably not read the post for what it is and there's a high probability that the blog post will probably end up getting lost in translation or totally misinterpreted but hey... that really isn't my problem right? Before we proceed to the main issue (or issues) at hand, I think its best I state my intentions and what I hope to achieve by publishing this post. Honestly... I hope it gets read by the right people in the right frame of mind, who's prepared to tackle the following issues in a mature and sensible manner. I believe that KNOWING and FULLY COMPREHENDING both sides to the story is the first step to resolving any conflict. All this talk about not needing/wanting to know about the other side... or not wanting to listen to what one of parties involved has to say prior to tackling the issue... just indicates how "serious" the mediator is on resolving the problem. Now with that out of the way... let me just slip in one more disclaimer. This is a blog post. It isn't a written assignment, an essay, nor is it a thesis paper. This is merely a note in which I am going to just write in as cohesive a manner as I possibly can about what I feel about what's going on around me (with respects to familial ties...)over the last few days. I will attempt to make this post as objective as possible though it is pretty darn obvious just what some of my prejudices are. (I will also be writing in ENGLISH... if you're not familiar with the sentence structure or vocabulary used... consult a dictionary OR a thesaurus [use the dictionary to find out what a thesaurus is...]. It doesn't matter if you're uneducated or possess a Masters in whatever-it-is-you-studied-in-uni...)

First and foremost, everyone needs to come to a decision on one fundamental issue. That would be just how much does this extended family mean to them. If everybody is in it just for the money or some other form of personal gain, than we needn't proceed further with the resolution process. However, if these familial ties aren't just about self gratification or some other menial, outstanding vendetta that needs to be shoved into each other's face then I'd say we're on the right track. Now assuming that everybody now is on the same page I am... we shall continue...

We will attempt to resolve this conflict from the base unit up. Beginning with the individual, followed by the respective family unit then the different generational tiers and lastly the whole family (from the Grandparents to the kids...) as a single entity.

The Individual

Its important to realize that everyone is different. Some are born arseholes, others grow to become arseholes :) Regardless, everyone has the right to be different. However, that right to be different has its limits. Acknowledging the fact that we are of Asian descent and hold strongly (or so we believe...) to our Asian roots, there are certain traditions/ practices that we still should (as I believe...)... these would include... filial piety, respect for elders, humility etc. For example, one should not curse or use expletives on ones parents on the internet. One shouldn't scream at an elder over the phone or say... wrestle with an aunt in public.... When giving out red packets, one shouldn't start behaving like an absolute retard by obnoxiously prancing around and declaring to the whole world that she wasn't stinging on red packets... One shouldn't smash a cup in another's face during Chinese New Year etc... the list goes on... and on... and on... Now, from the individual's perspective, if he or she could have better control over his or her actions/words (REGARDLESS of one's level of education or upbringing, though I must recognize that for some, the lack of an education AND a proper upbringing seems to be an achievement and excuse for every stupid action or gibberish said) there will without a doubt be much less conflict present.

The Family Unit

The family unit, as recognized by MM Lee and Confucius, is the most important unit in society. More so than the individual too if I might add. I will redefine the family unit as one which comprises a man, his wife (not the one who files documents for you at work nor the one who receives you when you arrive at some random Chinese airport... we're talking about the one the MAN swore and oath too... for better or for worse till death do them part) and their issue. Any conflicts within the family unit... gets settled within that family unit. External assistance is always welcome if it facilitates in resolving the conflict and adheres to the 1st rule of thumb stated above (comprehending and understanding both sides of the story and possessing a genuine interest in resolving the conflict in a fair and just manner). However, sadly unbiased assistance doesn't come by that often and in MOST cases, external interference seems to be a more appropriate term to use. Anything or anyone that threatens the stability of the singular family unit should be viewed as a pain in the arse and dealt with appropriately. (Brawling about it could be seen as a way of dealing with the situation appropriately but I would much rather recommend an open discussion or worse comes to worse... the cold shoulder.)

However, this trend of thought presents itself with a number of complications (Most of which can be easily resolved). Some family units believe that with seniority and a bit of cash, they have the right to superiority over the other branches of the family tree. This argument, sadly, is quite flawed. It is important to understand that each family unit is its own authority. The unit creates its own problems... the unit solves its own problems. When one unit goes renegade and starts antagonizing another unit within the same entity, both units become involved not just a the women, or the man of the unit. It is only by reaching a consensus between both entire units can the matter be considered resolved.

The Generational Tier

The younger generation should not interfere with the issues plaguing the older generation, unless that issues critically affects how the base unit (family unit, which involves both the older and the younger generation) in a negative way. The older generation should also be mature enough to keep their quarrels and arguments to themselves. Again, the lack of a decent education NOR a proper upbringing should be an excuse for failing to abide by the above.

The Family as an Entity

Assuming that everyone still believes that familial ties are sacred. Everyone should have the happiness of the family as his or her main objective. Sometimes that happiness can only be achieved with a little bit of compromise and a great dose of humility.

With the mantra-bit out of the way, I think I should write a bit about my sentiments. I always believe that blood runs thicker than water and it is without a doubt that theses familial ties do mean a lot to me. However, having said that, there is one thing that I will rank above the preservation of those familial ties and that would be the well being of my own family unit. I will and do not tolerate any form of prejudice against any member of my family unit. The hypocrisy and double standards which are strongly prevalent in the große familie will rip the family to bits unless its members are enlightened enough to recognize that their own selfish, petty agendas are standing in the way of what could be a blessed, joyous and loving family.